Posted
by
timothyon Wednesday August 26, 2009 @03:36PM
from the to-be-aware-of dept.

natehoy writes "According to the US News and World Report, a recent study has shown a link between obesity and the loss of neurological tissue. The brains of elderly patients who were obese had on average 8% less tissue than their trimmer counterparts. Overweight patients had brains lighter by about 4%. This could have implications for the onset of dementia illnesses such as Alzheimer's. Just one more risk factor to add to the growing body (no pun intended) of reasons to try and stay trim."

No, actually I think this study might have some merit. You see, fat people tend to have fat, stubby fingers. It is very difficult to play the Nintendo DS, with its small buttons and tiny touch screen, with fingers that resemble sausages. Even the Wii is difficult to play for morbidly obese people, since its buttons are also small, and the physical movement required is beyond the capability of those whose couches have become permanent parts of their anatomy.

What does this have to do with brain aging, you might ask. Elementary, my dear lardass. Without the Nintendo Brain Age series of games, how can we possibly keep our brains from aging? They're like steroids for your brain, except the link between the games and shrinking testicles has not yet been firmly established. So, unless we can come up with a good way for fat people to play these Brain Age games without causing them to sweat even more profusely than they already do, I'm afraid they're all doomed to early-onset Alzheimer's.

But seriously - this seems like its leading to a "Overweight people aren't smart enough to care about their health" kind of thing.

Actually, it's leading to a "Overweight people like food and not exercising more than they like their long-term health" kind of thing. This is not exactly new news, but this study is another nail in the coffin... pun intended.

More than 1 in 3 Americans are currently overweight. If we switch to nationalized health care, you fat fuckers better lose some goddamn weight. Because I don't want my tax dollars paying to treat your preventable illnesses because you felt like super-sizing it 3 nights a week wit

Any good scientific study includes both the effect ("8% brain loss") alongside an estimation of the error ("8% +/- 4%"). Over in the life sciences, when comparing the results from two groups (fat/normal, say) they like to give the probability that any difference they saw was due to chance, with suitably small values of this probability meaning that the result is considered "statistically significant".

Having a limited sample size makes it less likely that a small effect will be above this threshhold for significance (since you can't distinguish it from the noise), but it does nothing to impair the validity of the statistics themselves, so long as all the errors are estimated correctly (which they should be, if you do your math honestly).

Now, of course, the article linked in the summary doesn't actually give the significance level or the error estimates or any of those other things that are crucial to a scientific result actually meaning anything. But this is a condemnation of the shitty state of science reporting, not of the study itself.

Do they even TRY to adjust for the fact that fat people avoid getting health care most of their lives (because they're more likely to get tired of getting harassed by their doctor about their weight every time they go in for even a flu shot), drink more than thin people (getting shit on regularly can have that effect on people), and have crappier jobs than their normal-sized counterparts with the consequent lower incomes and inferior health care (because it's a lot harder to get hired)?

I'm not pretending that obesity has no effect on someone's health. But it just irks the hell out of me that these sensational studies always fail to adjust for these sorts of related factors in favor of the sensational (and grant whoring) headline of "Obesity correlates with such-and-such other calamity." I'm sure you could produce a study arguing that obesity makes you stupid too, by simply failing to adjust for the fact that the obese are often geographically concentrated in areas (like the American South) where public education is shit and poverty is high.

Why don't we just say that fat people are worse than Hitler and be done with it? You know, the way we've already done with anyone who dares smoke anything other than marijuana (which is somehow magically good for you), or who eats meat, or who drives an SUV (which some self-righteous asshole will probably link to sudden infant death syndrome in some future study), or any of the hundred other things that are going to kill us all any day now.

Is it any coincidence that the medical profession was once closely linked to the idea [thinkquest.org] that all illness was caused by immoral behavior?

Is it any coincidence that the medical profession was once closely linked to the idea [thinkquest.org] that all illness was caused by immoral behavior?

Interestingly enough, in the Old Testament, Job's three friends made this mistake and were actually reprimanded for it. Calamity and "bad stuff" (including illness) does not, even in the Old Testament, mean judgment from God for immoral behavior.

Nope. But I'd like to use it to point out that you can't simply say "the church" and expect you are going to cover everybody, as if they are all one happy family that believe basically the same thing and have for 2000 years.

For some reason, every time I try to draw a distinction, I am typically accused of being nitpicky and just playing semantics.

But really, it'd be like assuming that all Democrats or Republicans (or Conservatives or Liberals) believe the same thing. And if you call yourself a Democrat, y

drink more than thin people (getting shit on regularly can have that effect on people)

I haven't seen that to be the case; I don't see more fat people in bars than I do on the street. In fact, there are a higher percentage of fat people where I work than in my favorite bar, although that's probably because most of the people at work sit at a desk, while my favorite bar's clientelle is mostly construction workers.

and have crappier jobs than their normal-sized counterparts

The ones with the crappiest jobs usually are doing physical labor, and as such are generally a lot more fit than the average slashdotter, whether he's a skinny nerd or a fat nerd.

Why don't we just say that fat people are worse than Hitler and be done with it?

Gee, this early in the thread and Godwin has been invoked? I wish overweight people would be less self conscious about themselves. Except women -- "you're getting too skinny" can get you laid! I'm all for fat women, they're easier to seduce than hotties.

You know, the way we've already done with anyone who dares smoke anything other than marijuana (which is somehow magically good for you)

Actually, there have been studies showing benefits to potsmoking, including a greatly reduced risk of cancer among those who also smoke tobacco.

OK, you got me there. Driving an SUV is an almost sure sign of a reduced intellect. They cost more to drive than any other class of vehicle, and more people die in them per passsenger mile than any other type of vehicle due to their poor handling and braking and high center of gravity and lack of crumple zones. SUV drivers drive badly not from lack of driving skill but because their vehicles suck. Plus, ask an SUV driver why they have it and they'll say "it carries so many passengers", but notice SUVs on the road and you'll see very few with more than the driver. If you carry passengers, get a minivan -- more passengers, better mileage, and they're the safest vehicles on the road.

But in the end, you have to die from something. When my grandmother was 95 she said to me "I don't know why people want to live to be a hindred, it ain't no fun bein' old!"

She was overweight when I was a kid, but when she reached her mid seventies or early eighties she started losing weight. Her mind was sharp as a tack until the day she died (at age 99).

I want to haul plywood, bags of cement, tile, etc from home depot when I work on my house, tow my trailer full of dirt bikes or quads when I go camping, go off-roading occasionally, carry many passangers occasionally, go on a cross country trip with my wife, kids, and 2 weeks worth of luggage and I can't afford to have multiple vehicles for every task. Which type of vehicle is versatile enough to suit my (and the average American family's) needs.

Add up the percentage of time doing said activities, if they exceed a certain threshold you're better off renting a truck when it's time to haul some stuff. Given the crappy gas mileage and other down sides to SUVs it'll be hard to justify unless you're doing that stuff all the time. Of course if you can afford several bikes and quads then you can probably afford a $9000 point A to point B car which will save you a ton in gas, insurance, and maintenance.

So I should rent a truck just about every weekend? I've had small cars (prelude, civic, tC, BMW 3 series) and the fact is my Double Cab pickup is much more practical now that I own a house and am constantly working on home improvement projects or groccery shopping, or hauling my dirt bike around.

you can probably afford a $9000 point A to point B car which will save you a ton in gas, insurance, and maintenance

A 35 MPG car compared to a 15-20mpg SUV or truck is going to save me around $1500 a year in gas. So I will spend $9000 to save $1500 a year in gas for a break even point of 6 years if you don't count the insurance

First of all, yes, it would have ended better in Prius as the SUV tipped over which is not something a smaller car would have done.

You'll also note my very first sentence. If time doing said activities reaches a certain threshold then it makes sense. For the majority of people it doesn't and they've made poor choices. For you it does make sense which is why I wasn't making any statements that they should be banned. I come from farm country, believe me, I know there are times when you need a truck.

My truck tows 6,500lbs, and can haul 1700 in the bed. I can also seat 5 while doing so. I would not like to hook up a trailer for a run around the corner to home depot and if I owned a toy hauler that would be even more impractical. Not to mention my truck gets better gas mileage than both of those lowered SUVs, sorry mini-vans, you listed. The fact is for the average American home owner, a 4 door pickup or SUV is a very practical vehicle. The compromises you suggest are more expensive and less convenie

See the problem with this logic is that people compare the cost of large trucks to small cars. When you compare my 4 door tacoma to a 4 door camry the savings aren't as obvious. I went from a compact (scion tc) to a 4 door long bed pickup. I can haul basically anything I want, I get 4mpg less than the scion (22 compared to 26) and I can easily fit 5 people. Tires are the same price, about 150 each but the truck tires last twice as long. It holds 2 more quarts of oil and my insurance is 80 a month inste

I can't afford to have multiple vehicles for every task. My wife has a vehicle and I have a vehicle. We can't always car pool and we need to have a truck. I don't want to make 5 trips to pick up brick. That is fine that you do, before I had my truck I did similar things in my Scion, but the convienence is worth the money to me. Your Fit gets 27 - 33 mpg according to Honda's website. I get 22 mpg in my truck so the 5 to 11 mpg savings would not even save me that much. I imagine I wouldn't save money on

The douchebags are those who have to go out into the "wilderness" with their bikes and ATV's to tear up wild life habitat, all the while pouring their exhaust fumes into the world's air supply. Hippy? I'm not old enough. And, don't try with the liberal bleeding heart crap. Bleeding hearts won't kill a cute little bunny and eat it. Instead of eating squirrels, they feed peanut and stuff to the tree rats.

Think of the children. If you get them HIKING through the woods, instead of tearing the woods up on a

I haven't seen that to be the case; I don't see more fat people in bars than I do on the street. In fact, there are a higher percentage of fat people where I work than in my favorite bar, although that's probably because most of the people at work sit at a desk, while my favorite bar's clientelle is mostly construction workers.

Just because they aren't going to the bar doesn't mean they don't drink. Usually bars are social, a place to get together with "the guys" and try to pick up women. Now if a few fat guys are going together, why go to the bar where in general drinks are more expensive, you can't control the TV and your not going to pick up women at 400 pounds, when you can go to the liquor store and buy some cheap booze and go over to a friends house and catch the game or whatever?

The ones with the crappiest jobs usually are doing physical labor, and as such are generally a lot more fit than the average slashdotter, whether he's a skinny nerd or a fat nerd.

Eh? I'm overweight and see my doctor regularly for various things. He has never once harassed me about my weight.

In fact only one Doctor ever has. Of course I didn't put much stock in his diagnosis when, after suffering flu like symptoms for a month, no appetite, fever etc... He said I just had a cold. Then prescribed antibiotics for said cold.

I've also had two alcoholic drinks in the last 18 months.

You're making an awful lot of generalizations there. And the overweight people I know do not fall into the "w

I think the study adjusts for those factors perfectly well, in fact you're introducing some interesting possibilities as to an explanation for the link. The study (which is small, so we should obviously be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from it) only states that people who are obese appear to have less brain function. A few theories were forwarded to explain the link, but your theory is just as sound, and doesn't disprove the possible link.

Let's follow your chain of events for a moment. John is obese. John avoids his doctor because he's tired of being hassled about his weight. Fair enough - that's pretty common.

John is now in a negative feedback loop. He's receiving almost no advice on his diet, no encouragement to exercise, and probably is understandably demoralized from being called "fatty" and getting unwelcome advice from health freakazoids that he's likely to give up on health maintenance entirely. Poorer nutrition and less exercise mean that John's entire body is going to suffer, including the brain.

It's actually as good a theory as any. Obesity would have a significant correlation with people who are not caring for their overall health properly, and obesity can be both cause and effect in this case. John isn't a bad guy, he's just stuck in a rut, and he's headed for possible trouble.

I know John's story.

I'm 6' 3" and used to weigh very close to 300 pounds. I avoided my doctor for over a decade for the same reason John might.

It's tough to get started losing weight, and having a bunch of skinnyminnies around you crybabying about how you should get off your very large posterior and do something is not, repeat not, helpful. It's demoralizing, and makes the task of getting started look all that much harder.

It took a health scare for me to start the very long, very hard trail, and I'm now down to 215 (still mildly overweight, but I can ride my bike 30 miles a day without any problems). I wish terribly that I had learned my lesson an easier way, but I didn't, and I'm sure being obese for as long as I was will have long-term consequences. But I was where I was, and I understand how very hard it is to get started, and how the general attitude of society toward the obese does not make them want to help themselves. I wanted to just curl up with my Ben and Jerry's and donuts and leave me the hell alone.

I've encouraged several friends over the years to get up and just take short walks with me, and started a couple of them on the road to weight loss, but you've got to approach that sort of overture carefully, and have a sense for when your friend is ready to start helping themselves, then offer them some encouragement.

The trick I found was to stop looking at all the "beautiful people" and just look at myself. Me at 270 looked better than me at 280. 260 was getting downright sexy (OK, I exaggerate, no I outright lie, but anyway)...

Every few pounds was a struggle, but at the end I could look at a picture of myself a few pounds ago and say "Ugh! At least I'm better than that!"

In the end, I lost about 70 pounds, and it took me the better part of a year. And it was a tough year, full of triumphs and tragedies, hard work, f

So you 1) point out that correlation does not equal causation, then proceed to 2) say that it's likely that the obesity causes the brain aging seen in this study?

Because that is essentially your argument: that obesity directly causes a host of other factors, which collectively explain the observed correlation (brain aging). Therefore, obesity causes the mental decline, only indirectly. I fail to see any significant difference between the implication that obesity directly harms the brain, and that obesity, while not in itself injurious, causes people to behave in ways that are.

Do they even TRY to adjust for the fact that fat people avoid getting health care most of their lives (because they're more likely to get tired of getting harassed by their doctor about their weight every time they go in for even a flu shot), drink more than thin people (getting shit on regularly can have that effect on people), and have crappier jobs than their normal-sized counterparts with the consequent lower incomes and inferior health care (because it's a lot harder to get hired)?

Parent is insightful? Insightful, my ass. One just might draw a corollary that these aging, obese patients were lacking in neural material to start with, and that's how they got to BE so fat!!

Seriously - people who give a damn about their health and appearance, people who care enough to take care of their bodies, will incidentally be taking care of the tissue that houses their minds as well. By no means does that mean they are minding their minds. There are plenty of stupid, ignorant skinny people to put

I suppose the "correlation" between obesity and heart disease, diabetes, and heart attack are the result of moralist chiding also. Hmmm.

You are right in that obese people have the right not to be picked on and kicked around; however, it would be morally wrong withhold these results. Maybe you're mixing up conclusions made by the journalist versus conclusions made by the study, because you argue the study doesn't factor in the risk of biased sampling (for example sampling people in the South). Random samplin

I was recently in China for a conference. I'm a little guy (5'9" 145#) by US standards, but I was pretty big compared to the Chinese. I get on a plane back to the States, and was sort of shocked to see fat people again after not having seen many at all for two weeks. Upon returning I go to see my family in Alabama, with a connection in Denver.

The Tucson to Denver flight had some overweight people on it, but not too many... but as soon as I got on the Denve

I had the same shock when I went to France and spent a week in Orleans. At the time, I weighed 205 and I'm 6'3", so I didn't stand out amongst the French population. I walked around Paris for a day, then spent most of my time in Orleans (when I wasn't working) walking down the pedestrian district trying French food.

I saw three people who were heavy enough to stand out, and all three were Americans.

When I got back to JFK Airport in the US, it was almost shocking to see how many people were large.

The things we get used to and don't even realize it...

The funny part was that I ATE LIKE AN EFFING KING in France. I denied myself NOTHING, and ate cheese by the ton. And came back 2 pounds lighter. I'm sure it helped that I only used my car to go back and forth to work, and the rest of my time was spent walking (4-5 miles a day, minimum).

I'm sure it also helped that there was very little sugar in what I ate in France, and it was all food prepared by people who care about the quality of what they were serving. Even the cafeteria food at the company I was working for ran circles around the nicer restaurants here in the US, and the restaurants? Oh. My. God. I have never eaten anything like it.

Well, the danger of these kinds of correlation studies is that you have no idea what the relationship is.

Maybe people who have brain degeneration are prone to eating more food, thus becoming obese? In that case getting them to eat less won't fix their brains because you have it the wrong way around.

Likewise, just why is it that SO many people are overweight? Is the present generation just collectively lacking in willpower? Sure, you can shout at people to go on a diet, but they've been doing that for the

People may be eating more, or they may be eating a higher percentage of food that gets turned into fat, or they may be exercising less. I'd actually vote for all three.

Our food is cheaper, more plentiful, and more processed than it was just a few short decades ago. In fact, heavily-processed foods tend to preserve better, and are therefore cheaper to transport (less loss), and are generally cheaper to consume. I can go to Mickey D's and buy Quarter Pounders on white flour buns, and supersize my sugary dr

A better theory might focus on hypoxia/ischemia. These are known to cause brain atrophy, and seem to occur widely with cardiovascular issues. For example, people who live at high altitudes, have sleep apnea tend to have decreases in brain volume in specific regions i.e hippocampus. However the specificity of region is relative to the extent of the oxygen deprivation. In any case, older and overweight people tend to have greater cardiovascular issues.
Compound with this is diabetes which does have a cumulat

Dr. Jonathan Friedman, an associate professor of surgery and neuroscience and experimental therapeutics at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine noted that the causal relationship here is not clear.

From the New Scientist article on the ssubject of big people with little brains:

In an as yet unpublished study, Thompson's team has shown that exercise, which improves cardiovascular health and blood flow, protects the very brain regions that had shrunk in the current study. "The most strenuous kind of exercise can save about the same amount of brain tissue that is lost in the obese," he says. This indicates that it is blood flow that drives brain health, not the other way round. As these areas undergo the most remodelling throughout adult life, they may be more sensitive to any changes in oxygen supply and nutrients, Thompson suggests.

But Deborah Gustafson at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, who previously found that overweight women had less brain tissue than their leaner counterparts, questions whether obesity is driving brain atrophy or vice versa. She points out that brain atrophy in the frontal and temporal lobes, which also control eating behaviour and metabolism, could cause weight gain. "There are not enough longitudinal data available for us to know which is the chicken and which is the egg."

Why do you think that? The article says absolutely nothing about intelligence. The gray matter in the cerebral cortex of educated people is THINNER than that in people without post-secondary educations. Do you think that makes educated people stupid? The current belief is that their brains are simply BETTER ORGANIZED and more efficient because of their continued intellectual growth in their late teens and early 20's.

What a great way to think of yourself: That only stupid women would want you.

Please continue. I'll even support you.

Me, I will think women are wisest if they choose me, that I am the greatest man that ever existed, then work hard to actually make that true, and because of that get the greatest women that ever existed. MUHAHAHAHAAAA(*camera zooms away from evil lair, into the sky... and the movie is over*)

You seem to be implying that the brain chemistry precedes the obesity. It's actually more than just likely that it's the other way around. History points to that one. Because, this obesity problem is very *very* new and it takes a *long* time for such things to change in such a large number of people. That is, unless you factor in the dietary changes. Hmm. Think that might have something to do with it? You know, the obesity problem linked to peoples diets? There's more than just a correlation there

I keep getting hungrier and hungrier, and my brain keeps gettting dimmer and dimmer! I was once a sex symbol; now, I am obese-demented superstar. I love stwawbewwy ice kweam and rubbing egg whites in my arm pits. Who am I?

Give up? I'm MARLON BRANDO! (Yes, I know I'm dead, but being dead gives one the amount of time to learn about technology, and then become interested in sites such as Slashdot. So what I'm saying is entirely plausible and you cannot dismiss it).

There is accumulating evidence that certain viruses may cause obesity, in essence making obesity contagious, according to Leah D. Whigham, the lead researcher in a new study, "Adipogenic potential of multiple human adenoviruses in vivo and in vitro in animals," in the January issue of the American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology published by the American Physiological Society.
The study, by Whigham, Barbara A. Israel and Richard L. Atkinson, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, found that the human adenovirus Ad-37 causes obesity in chickens. This finding builds on studies that two related viruses, Ad-36 and Ad-5, also cause obesity in animals.
Moreover, Ad-36 has been associated with human obesity, leading researchers to suspect that Ad-37 also may be implicated in human obesity. Whigham said more research is needed to find out if Ad-37 causes obesity in humans. One study was inconclusive, because only a handful of people showed evidence of infection with Ad-37 -- not enough people to draw any conclusions, she said. Ad-37, Ad-36 and Ad-5 are part of a family of approximately 50 viruses known as human adenoviruses.

This should be obvious. There is already a clear understanding of the cause of obesity via carbohydrate consumption, combined with the effects of said consumption on the production of advanced glycation endproducts [wikipedia.org] (AGEs) in the brain, and their effect on cognitive function.

If I may offer my opinion as someone who researches cognitive aging and the brain, I think the link (without actually reading the article) is likely due to cerebrovascular factors. People who are overweight often have high or highly varying blood pressure. They also often have arterosclerosis and all sorts of plaque build-up in the blood vessels. Basically their cardiovascular systems in general do not work as efficiently.

The brain is very power hungry. It needs virtually uninterrupted blood flow to function well. People who have reduced blood flow (efficiency) could have lower blood perfusion in the brain. Their neurons may just be slowly starved of enough oxygen and nutrients. People who are overweight are at increased risk for developing strokes, particularly so-called "silent strokes" that might not have apparent effects at first but could over time.

I don't think it's the obesity as much as the cardiovascular issues that are associated with it. I've seen the brains of older adults who have (uncontrolled or long-term) high blood pressure and by and large, they are not pretty. Their white matter is often pretty messed up. They often have larger ventricles (more brain atrophy) and do worse on cognitive tests.

In any case, being overweight is one of the worst things you can do to your overall health. Maybe not now, but in old age overweight (particularly obese) people are going to have a lot of problems - physical and cognitive. Again, I deal not with individuals as much as with groups of people so everything I say should be taken as "on average."

I don't think it's the obesity as much as the cardiovascular issues that are associated with it.

Well, if by "the obesity", you mean the fact that their body fat is a higher percentage of total body mass than normal, I think we all agree that that is not *the cause*. I also didn't make the claim that there is only one cause - there could be multiple.

The idea that you can make a couple of simple changes and lose lots of weight is great for building a money milking industry on top of

Well, actually it was pretty easy for me, and everyone I've recommended this diet to has had similar results - 15-20 lbs dropped in under a month. I myself lost 40 lbs and have kept it off for a year. My weight loss was all without exercise - I didn't want to confound the data, so I avoided all exercise. I also didn't starve myself - I ate whenever I was hungry, and even then was eating 1400-2200 Calories a day. The diet was simply meats, fish, eggs, bacon, cheeses, dairy, some vegetables, minimal low-carb

There is already a clear understanding of the cause of obesity via carbohydrate consumption, combined with the effects of said consumption on the production of advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) in the brain, and their effect on cognitive function.

I'd be very cautious when using the words "clear understanding" with nearly anything in cognitive science. Scientists didn't even pay attention to neurotropic factors in the brain until relatively recently, and if you ignore factors that can cause neural growth (like... excercise - scientists are guessing that excercise is neurotropic since we need to often map out new areas when walking a lot) it's hard to make a statement that obsesity caused by eating too much is the cause of cognitive decline, as opposed to obesity caused by not exercising enough. In fact, I think that if you exercise a lot, obesity almost vanishes as a cause of a lot of problems.

You also have related issues like eating too much / not exercising enough contributes to diabetes, and having high blood glucose levels causes a wide variety of problems, such as damage to small blood vessels and a (likely related) decline in neural function.

But we're still in the stone age when it comes to all this kind of stuff.

Wow, you obviously read that article with an enormous anti-carb agenda. As a carbon-based life form, your body craves carbohydrates to stay healthy and alive. They simply should not be the only type of energy you consume. Low carb diets are designed to trick the body into a starvation shock. Is the food pyramid carb-heavy? Yes, as the article says and dieticians agree. Should you eliminate carbs from your diet? If you like dying young, then go ahead.

No, you're confusing yourself with someone who has the ability to read. Consult your biologist today to find out what happens to any carbon-based organism when it has no saccharides. Luckily for the kool-aid-drinking fad-diet jumpers like you, the human body ends up making its own carbohydrates if you're not eating enough -- but it's taxing on your system. Consult your physician.

Yep. That's the problem right there my friend. A survey of 94 people and they publish this nonsense when there are so many other factors probably at play.

The fact is in 100 years people will look back and see how backward we are medically. Over the last 8 or so years I've learned a lot about the medical profession etc... And it's left me with no faith at all in doctors. I know more and more people with medical issues doctors just can't fix. I have stuff that's been going on for years and doctors just throw

We've become a culture where a serving of fettuccine Alfredo is nicknamed " heart attack on a plate" and french fries are frequently mentioned with the prefix "artery-clogging."

"The results of cholesterol and heart disease research was not meant to be applied to healthy people or the world at large," said Dr. Donald McNamara, a cholesterol research scientist and director of Eggs for Health Consulting in Laurel, Md. He compares such an approach

I have been overweight for over ten years now and this is the best reason to slim down I've heard yet. I take a great deal of pride in my intelligence, so anything that puts it at risk can not be tolerated.

Perhaps since you either have to have an account with Wiley-Interscience, be at a library that does or pay for the article. I suppose there should be a pro forma link but I don't think too many people are going to pony up.

Couch potatoism might be to blame. Our culture is based on watching TV and being on the computer (sniker) most of the time.
Wanna help stem the bad health, go with your kids for a walk or hike. Walk the dog. Get offa the couch.

Maybe it really has to do with MENTAL activity though? You could tell obese people to get off the couch and go for a walk all you like, but if the core problem is that they're mentally lazy, and prefer passive forms of entertainment (like television) to active problem-solving and deep thought, you probably haven't fixed anything for them.

In fact, I think it might be interesting to see if this claimed loss of brain function in obese people applies equally to obese people with a career in the computer field,

I've often wondered whether differential calorie consumption by the brain is responsible for differences in obesity? Do the brains of less intelligent people (or people who prefer intellectually-passive activities) consume less energy and thus make their owners more likely to gain weight?

Maybe just put a treadmill in front of the keyboard instead of a chair. A slow to moderate walking pace should be easy enough to adapt to for typing and would probably increase blood flow to the brain. I know going for short walks once or twice an hour improves my productivity (and creativity) while working on computers.

it sure seems that those who are more active and "vibrant" are also much thinner than those who are much less active and generally overweight. That level of activity does not generally just relate to physical activity from what I've seen. There's far more mental stimulation going on along with that physical activity. So, are they just noticing that less mental stimulation means less brain mass?

I wonder if this is related to the effects on the brain of the balance between Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acids [wikipedia.org] in the diet. (high-fat Western meat-based diets usually contain more Omega 6, whereas low-far fish based Eastern diets tend to have more Omega 3). I've seen studies that have shown that increasing Omega 3 in the diet (via cod liver oil pills) in school kids can improve their school results - there is a lot of Omega 3 usage in the brain I believe.

My guess is, that sugar can be the link between those two things. Or generally all very pure carbohydrates.

Because they usually not only make you fatter than fat. (It's a common misconception that fat would be generally bad, while it would be OK if there's still too much sugar in it.)But they also lack the vitamin Bs that you need to digest them... and that your brain unfortunately needs too, to work properly.

Just sayin...

And even if not, you won't hurt yourself by replacing them by wholemeal products and f

Once upon a time, obesity was a sign of wealth. Food was different in those days and only by consuming large quantities of it could you hope to gain the wealthy appearance of obesity.

These days, the opposite is true. Our food is different in its content and in its richness. Average portion offered for sale are larger. And while it's true that people do less physical work, doing some basic calculation associated with calorie intake versus calorie burn and the increase of calorie burn with added exercise will reveal that exercise is not as effective at controlling weight as is controlling intake.

It is my observation that reducing the intake of food is the most significant thing anyone can do when attempting weight control and what's more, there is no "I have no time for it" excuse when attempting to do so. It is also my observation that reducing the intake of food is extremely difficult for a variety of reasons. Our habits and expectations are hard to change when ordering or preparing food. (for example, don't we all feel like a cheap-ass for not ordering that double-quarter-pounder meal deal instead of ordering from the dollar menu to get smaller portions?) Further, the content of our most available foods are a lot higher in calories than they have been in the past and this is largely due to increases in highly processed ingredients and preservatives and the like. While other nations have outlawed many of the more offensive ingredients, the U.S. has failed to issue as many restrictions which I believe is one of the most significant reasons that the U.S. is one of the most obese nations in the world today.

So what can we do? The best thing is to buy less and eat less. It takes a lot of effort to eat less, but in time your stomach will shrink and it will actually become difficult to eat as much as you are now accustomed to eating. This helps a lot, but it's the best answer for everyone and often leads to feelings of hunger and tiredness even after the adjustment in intake is made. (Keep in mind that the purpose of expensive and elective gastric alteration surgical is to serve this exact cause but people prefer to make these changes in their bodies rather than to make changes in their self-discipline.) Another thing is to start sending comments to your government representatives about fixing healthcare by fixing the problems with our food! (Imagine national healthcare costs plummeting because we aren't getting diabetes or any of the other health problems associated with obesity with the same frequency. That's what we see in nations with better controls over food content and since we're all the same species, we can expect similar results by enforcing similar rules.)

And before anyone start the criticism or attacks, let me just say that I am obese. I am working on it, but it's damned hard. I'm 200lbs (+/- 5lbs) when I should be 180lbs or less. I own more clothes that I cannot wear than clothes that I can. (I don't want to buy more "fat clothes" because that merely feeds the problem. I want to wear my old clothes.) And to better tie my commentary in with the original story, I feel a LOT less smart than I was when I was operating at my prime weight. And since I have been losing weight, I am feeling a lot more alert and aware than I have in a while and I sleep better and need less sleep as well. The benefits are obvious. And when the main course of action is simply to do less of what is causing the problem, it's not unreasonable or even expensive to pull off. I sure as hell haven't stopped eating at McDonald's... I just eat slightly more than the contents of a kid's meal instead of super-sizing everything.

Well, that and the drugs. As I understand it, after enrolling at Southeast Missouri State University, he dropped out after two semesters. Rumor has it that he "flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class..Maybe the small brain size thing preceded obesity in this case.

Well I don't listen to Rush, dont care for the guy. But what does your comment say about you?

Rush probably makes more then you

He has his own radio show

Most people in the US know who he is

Of that list I bet you cannot check any of those off for yourself? So in other words if Rush Limbaugh is the bar to be above, since his is the center of your joke, you are below that bar.So how worthless are you? Maybe your brain has less tissue compared to Rush?

That's quite possible. The article mentions some possible feedback loops, but the overall gist is that there is a correlation between being obese and losing brain function as you get older.

As someone tagged it, "correlation is not causation," and that's a fair accusation of both my choice of headlines and the that of the original article (though the article itself does mention a series of possible reasons for the link).

It could be that reduced brain function leads to overeating or poorer food choices, or a

I saw this quote: "the researchers studied brain images of 94 people in their 70s who had participated in an earlier study looking at cardiovascular health and cognition."

At that point, I said, "Stop. What a useless study." Look at the sample size again... 94?!?!? That has a roughly 10% margin of error built in to the sample size (at a 95% confidence interval). At least they included the sample size!...and then there's the operative word "study...." That, word (in the singular, no less), gives me all sorts of warm fuzzies.

So, is that 8% (+/- 10%) less brain mass for obese elderly people or a range from 7.2% to 8.8% for obese elderly people, based on this sample and a 95% confidence interval? I'm thinking the former.

In statistics class, this was called by the name "statistical deception." Just because a single study of 94 people says so, don't believe it. It has a roughly 50% chance of being right -- or wrong (at a 100% confidence interval) but so do psychics, horoscopes, and fortune cookies.

Junk science prevails in the popular press. Anything sensational gets front-page headlines -- it gets grant money and sells news. It doesn't matter that the next study contradicts it, the next supports it, the next contradicts that one, and on and on the tennis match goes....

Once this has been peer reviewed numerous times with tens of thousands of people per study, call me. I'll be getting a snack, in the mean time.

I sense that you may have some concern over the implications of this study. If you think these results troubling and wish to discredit them, consider asking for a wider study rather than calling it junk science. Their margin of error may be off, but I doubt it's by a significant enough amount to warrant being labeled 'Junk Science'